Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20150107 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 07, 2015 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St. 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes December 3, 2014 December 10, 2014 C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items III. OLD BUSINESS A. A. 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second (5:10) Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances, PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED FROM NOV. 12TH IV. NEW BUSINESS A. A. Lot 2, 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision (6:00) Conceptual Major Development And Residential Design Standards Variances, PUBLIC HEARING B. B. Election of 2015 Chair and Vice-Chair V. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #1, 2015 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation ( 5 minutes ) Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes ) Applicant presentation ( 20 minutes ) Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes ) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) ( 5 minutes ) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes ) HPC discussion ( 15 minutes ) Motion ( 5 minutes ) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 1 Vice-chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, John Whipple, Nora Berko and Jim DeFrancia. Sallie Golden was seated at 5:06. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: John moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 12, 2014, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. 101 W. Main St. aka Moly Gibson Lodge and Lot 2 of 125 W. Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split Sallie said she is working with John Cottle on a project and she has no personal interest or financial gain on this project. She can be completely impartial and biased. Jim echoed Sallie’s comments. He is working on a project with John Cottle also and has no financial interest in this project and can be impartial. Sara said the project is for the re-development of the Molly Gibson. The reviews for tonight are conceptual major redevelopment because a portion of the property is in the Main Street historic district, demolition, residential design standard variances for the two single family homes that are proposed along Hopkins and conceptual commercial design review and growth management review. The two reviews that are recommendations to city council are planned development project review which establishes the dimensional requirements for the project and subdivision review which is requested to merge the vacant lot along Main St. where the Molly Gibson is currently located. We find that the applicant has addressed all of our concerns and we are supportive of the project. The applicant restudied the two story module which is adjacent to the landmark and they are proposing two different roof forms, a flat roof and a gable roof. The applicant prefers the flat roof option. Staff prefers the gable roof as it is more literal and an obvious relationship to the historic landmark. They have also created a P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 2 porch element. We are also supportive of the subdivision to merge the two lots and the review criteria are met. A setback variance is requested for the side yard that is closest to the landmark. Parcel II is the two single family homes. The applicant has really squeezed the two single family homes and they have lost about 1,000 square feet of FAR. They were asking for four variances per house and now they are just asking for two per house. Staff is comfortable with the two variances per home. They have also reduced their site coverage. They have increased the side yard setback to 7 feet to give relief on the two residences on either side of the property. Their site coverage went from 56 % to 51%. The review criteria are met and staff recommends approval. On the RDS’s they need a variance from secondary mass and inflection. Stan Clauson & Associates Michael Brown, owner John Cottle, Cottle & Yaw Architects Stan said they will address the changes made from the responses at the last hearing. Michael said this project is consistent with our small town character. It is the lowest density of any lodging project and it is the lowest in height of any project. We have 53 rooms now and we will go up to 64 rooms. We have two free market homes on Hopkins and one condo within the hotel. We also have on-site affordable housing and there is a detached sidewalk on Main Street which is a major improvement to Main Street. We are not requesting building fee waiver, affordable housing waivers, parking waivers and both buildings conform to the height in their respective zone districts. Stan said the delivery area is in a portion of the alley. The alley has a 20 foot right-of-way which allows a delivery to be stationed to the building and on Parcel II the setbacks have been increased and there is a decrease in floor area and the Residential Design Standards have been reduced by 50%. The western module on Main Street has been modified. Option I includes a flat roof and a step back first floor element which creates a porch which reflects the porch on the Victorian and a connecting element. Option 2 has those qualities but adds a peaked roof to the design. John said there is a five foot overhang on the second story that ties into the elements of the Victorian next door. We feel the flat roof is more successful P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 3 and is tied to the Herbert Bayer design era. The gable roof although ties into the Victorian over time will not be successful. It will feel like the post modern has come back. The flat roof is more consistent with the building and it ties into Aspen’s strong rigorous design heritage. The side yard setback has been increased from 5 to 7 feet. Stan said the narrowing of the buildings resulted in the total reduction of 1,000 square feet of FAR. John said the front door is ten feet back rather than 13 feet back. Stan said there is public space inside the lodge and there is an 8 foot sidewalk. The Main Street elevation will be a vast improvement over what is there now. Jim inquired about the flat roof. Michael said they would prefer the flat roof because it relates to the building better; however, we feel good about both roofs. Patrick inquired about a duplex functioning better because then you wouldn’t have to have the ten feet inbetween the two buildings. John said we wanted to return that side of the street to single family homes. Willis opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: This is a comprehensive review The subdivision will be referred to city council The planned development is also a recommendation GMQS Commercial Design Review Residential Design Standard Variances Willis identified the issues on Parcel I Setbacks along Main Street - They are asking for a cantilever on the second floor that triggers a variance. The delivery area has been identified P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 4 Willis identified the issues on Parcel II Reduction of 1,000 square feet of FAR RDS’s have been reduced from 4 to 2 Site coverage and setback requirements have been increased Willis said staff feels the gable roof better represents the incentives for the lot split. The gable is a little richer overall and Shakespearian. The setbacks are fine and the delivery area has been identified. The 7 foot setback works for the residence to the east but not quite as well on the west. Sallie said this is a good project and she has no issues with any of the setbacks or design standards. The flat roof is simpler and easier on the eye to look at. Jim said the flat roof is entirely appropriate. This is a great project. Nora said the flat roof ties into the project. I am grateful to see a project in which we are not talking about parking and height. John said on Parcel II you are giving the neighbors an additional two feet, 7 total. Returning the neighborhood to its intended us is great. The reduction of 1,000 square feet total is really generous and probably not necessarily needed. On Parcel I when you look at the pictures the gabled end pops out instead of the Victorian house so the flat roof is a better design. It is a successful project and I am looking forward to having it built. Patrick said he feel the gabled roof is more appropriate because of the nature of the development. Eaves in the soffit are also recommended so that there is more of a transition. On Parcel II the shapes are the same on the outside but the setbacks are different. Willis said the conditions on either side of the houses are different. The setbacks should be the same on either side. John said the applicant has made a real effort to give the neighbor more space and if the neighbor was concerned about gaining a two feet of setback and wanted more they would have voiced their concerns. P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 5 Willis said there is plenty of breathing room on the house to the west but less so on the east. Sallie said hours and hours of study have been put into this. Jim said there have been a lot of concessions and this is a good project. John agreed that the concessions should be considered. Nora said we have design standards that need met. Willis said variances are there to create design excellence and a better situation. Nora said if this becomes a flat roof is the integrity and intent of the lot split lost. Sara said applications are on a case by case determination and the HPC needs to balance what is presented and how that relates to the historic resource in order to meet the lot split criteria. Sallie said the lot split relieves more development that could happen without it. We need to look at projects on an individual basis. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #35 in the format as drafted by staff with the condition that the flat roof is approved; second by Sallie. VOTE: Jim, yes; Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; John, yes; Patrick, no; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-1. 232 E. Main – Planned Development Project Review, Demolition, Growth Management, Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development in a Historic District, Waivers and Variances, cont’d from Nov. 19 th Mitch Haas Mark Hunt Charles Cunniffe Spiro Tsaparas P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 6 Sara said this is a continued public hearing from Nov 19 th . The project is Base 2 lodge at 232 E. Main Street. HPC is a recommending body for all of the reviews on this project to City Council. The applicant has done studies and analysis of the neighborhood. Staff is in support of the application and it does meet the review criteria. The height variation is about 4 ½ feet and it is for the proposed gable which needs the variation. They could do a flat roof that would meet the underlying zoning for height but in staff’s opinion we strongly feel that the gable roof contributes to the historic district and creates interesting architecture that Aspen has a history of having. Having a flat roof might not be the best solution for this corner. The applicant will show a vehicle access plan regarding the parking situation. They are providing parking off-site either in the Rio Grande Parking garage or in a similar situation. The applicant is offering to do a valet service to get the cars parked in the garage. There are also two loading spaces in front of the lodge. The gas station will be eliminated and there will be more on-street parking. HPC spent a lot of time talking about snow shedding and the applicant will address that. The code does not allow snow to be landing on a sidewalk. Staff feels this is a successful project. It is important to remember that there will be a building built on this site and a redevelopment. We think this is a very exciting project. When you are proposing a lodge with small rooms and large density you end up with a pretty high mitigation rate. That is something that council will have to balance and weigh when they get this project in front of them. Sara said the Parking Department is comfortable assigning two loading spaces for the lodge in front of the entrance because we don’t want cars stopping in the street. The public parking along Carl’s will be parallel. Nora inquired about the height of the Jerome Hotel on Bleeker and Monarch. Sara said it is 50.4 feet high. Jim asked about the affordable housing. Sara said their requirement would be either 3FTE’s or 1.78 FTE’s depending on the generation rate that is used. They are requesting a waiver. Sallie said when they came the last time there was no a commitment to off- site parking and there was no valet and this time there is. Jim inquired about the parking garage arrangement. P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 7 Sara explained that the parking would be for both lodge projects. It would be between 40 and 50 spaces in the winter, fall and spring and in the summer between 20 and 25 spaces. It is generated at ½ parking space per lodge unit. Sara went over the conditions in the resolution. Sara said the public amenity space is the proposal for a publically accessible roof top deck. We find that it is a creative space and a huge asset. A permanent easement would be drawn up. The roof top space cannot be enclosed with walls and windows. John asked about the urban runoff plan with 0 setbacks. Sara said that is handled through the Engineering Dept. and they would have to meet the standards. Mitch Haas said the team chose planned development instead of rezoning because we are not looking to vary the underlying uses in the mixed use zone district. It is a better solution to put the parking off-site. The development is at the property line with a 0 setback today and because it is a gas station cars are coming and going all the time. The traffic impacts will significantly decrease with our proposal. From the pedestrian perspective we will have detached sidewalks, trees and landscape strips. Right now the property is 100% impervious with concrete. The Cortina and Carl’s pharmacy is lot line to lot line. The roof steps down to the Cortina Lodge to inflect. The roof deck is just under 600 square feet and is open to the public and is well above the required public amenity requirement. The basement will also be open to the public. A waiver is requested for the affordable housing single one bedroom apartment. The code sets up incentives for lodge development. There is not a lot of lodge diversity in this town. This is a 6,000 square foot lot if you want affordable lodging you have to swallow some variations. We are doing this because the community asked for it. If the community can’t handle this it will be something else. Mark Hunt said we feel we are trying to put our best foot forward. A lot of things in the code are tired to the bed count. The costs are heating and cooling for each room so per square foot a lot of these costs go up and along that same path we are trying to come up with something affordable. The size and mass fits in and overall the peak pays respect to the West End and the Modern Ski Chalet. In the slow season on average there are 140 cars P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 8 that come in and out of the gas station per day. In the busier season it is 208 cars. Lets say the average stay in Aspen is 3 1/2 days. Using the math it is 74 cars a week at full occupancy. With the creation of the sidewalk and the building the benefits far out weight what people are perceiving right now. If the architecture is not compelling we can go back and explore the 32 foot flat roof. At the end I hope you feel that the benefits for the community out weight what we are asking for. Charles said in terms of affordable lodging if the lodge isn’t in this location where do we have the opportunity to do something that is appropriate. Jay Maytin said they had a meeting with the Ski Company representatives and gave them the presentation and they did commit if the lodges are built we will have a specific incentive plan with the Ski Company for the guests of the lodges to be able to purchase their products at a discounted rate. Spiro Tsaparas said they did a study assuming they had parking onsite. Because this is a guest experience the cars do not park themselves, the valet parks the cars. The valet driver will have to take a right on Main, right on S. Aspen and a right on Bleeker and a right on Monarch and come into the alley and take the car down. At that point that car has travelled 1, 330 feet. If the car goes to the Rio Grande the valet driver will make a left on Main and Mill and enter the parking garage. At that point the car as travelled 841 feet and has not travelled through any residential area. Regarding the 25 spots in the summer we will probably valet them because the cars still have to go somewhere. We will just have to pay a little more. Willis said the board received 4 letters - Exhibit I Sara said there were two letters against the project, one from John Feza and one from Joe Haloll. There were also two letters of support one from Dana Horton and one from Kerri Simms. There was a letter in the packet against the project from Barbara Reed. Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Ben Genshaft, attorney representing the two owners at 117 W. Monarch. We applaud the applicant’s creativity. This lot might not be the right lot for the project and the building is out of place in the neighborhood. This looks like a rezoning and perhaps it should have come in that way. If the project is P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 9 approved the five foot setback off the alley would help my clients if that can occur and give them a little more sunlight. A few feet lower in height can also make a difference. People don’t always like the valets to take their cars and you are going to see parking around here. If it wasn’t a lodge you wouldn’t have loading zones and you would get three or four more parking spots. David Roth said he lived at 219 N. Monarch for 19 years. The traffic from the gas station is crazy on that corner. There are no curbs where people can just walk freely. I see nothing negative about this project. The hotel would be an improvement on that corner and I am surprised about the negativity. Mitch pointed out that if it was rezoned it would be a lesser process than the planned development. Spiro pointed out that a fence up to 6 feet could be built on the property line. By removing the gas station we are removing a bunch of unexpected creativity of the various drivers coming from every direction. Mark said you can’t force someone to valet park but this has to be valet parking regardless if it is onsite or offsite. Vice-chair, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Willis said the board needs to discuss the dimensional variance requests and whether C zoning is applicable at this corner. It is a mixed use underlying zone district which has different dimensional requirements. We should also discuss snow shedding. Issues: Parking Affordable house Balance whether the community benefit is there vs any perceived drawbacks. Willis said the presentation was very good and many of the arguments are compelling. The board reacts to design quality and not having to swallow things. This is a hotel and by definition can be bigger and taller than other program types. The streetscape has improved. The community benefit of having small hotel rooms and affordable is exactly what the Aspen Area P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 10 Community Plan has been asking for for ten years or so. The traffic study numbers are astounding. The issue with the snow is a technical issue that will need addressed. We might want to discuss the alley and the transition to the R-6 zoning and the five foot setback. Nora pointed out that at the end of the day when the building is done it is judged on its mass and scale. Jim said from the polling solicitations coming from the Community Development Dept. on incentives for lodges the three things that were overwhelming they did not favor significant concessions on parking, affordable housing and height. This project is asking for numerous waivers. What is offered in exchange is by designing economy lodging. The traffic and parking bother me the most. I suggest the traffic won’t decrease it will just change. You will have two pickup spots. There is no assurance that the guests will show up two by two nicely, you will have six show up at one time. They will double park in the middle of the street. Human behavior indicates that people don’t like to give up their cars and will park two blocks away. We should get something back as a public benefit. They should provide the one bedroom unit. You need to look at what you are getting in exchange for the waivers. John said the roof top is the largest public amenity this board has ever seen. If not here then where would you put the lodge. This is a dangerous street corner on the cusp of the downtown core. Nora said this is mixed use therefore we need to adhere to the dimensions of the mixed use. If there is too much program and they need all the variances than the program is too big. I understand the 10 foot setback on the front but on the sides and back I am having a difficult time approving it. This project is also blocking the Smuggle Ridge line. The people will be parking in the West End and there isn’t any space there. The building should be a little more welcoming and not so massive. Sallie said the parking plan is the perfect solution. The economics of the project is not my charge but if it is going to be more expensive to park your car than stay in the room that entire thing won’t work. I feel you have solved my issues. One concern is the alley and all the ice etc. Maybe have a canopy to give some relief. Maybe you could push a canopy on the front out P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 11 five feet for people to walk underneath. Sallie said she doesn’t have a problem with the height or roof. John said there is a lot of good here and a lot of community members have applauded this project. When I can’t find parking I know that the two bottom floors of the parking garage are empty. The group found a solution for the parking. This building is in the right location and in the sweet spot. The concealed gutter and snow fence are a good resolution. The project will not take away from the Hotel Jerome. Staff did a good job in reviewing this project and I also support it. Patrick agreed with staff and supports the project as is. As far as the parking if they don’t want valet you can give them a pass and they can drive into the parking garage by themselves therefore they won’t think about parking in the West End because they have a parking pass for the garage. As far as mass and scale the benefits out weight the setbacks. Patrick thanked the applicant for getting in touch with the Ski Company and they should publicize that they are doing a packet commitment. If a building is three stories tall and within the setback it is still going to create the exact same ice in the alley and the exact shadow in the winter. If you are at the gondola the sun sets at 2:00 p.m. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #36 as written with the condition to study the rear yard setback to the north; second by Patrick. Jim asked for a friendly amendment to include that the affordable housing be mitigated onsite or cash-in-lieu or housing credit. Willis made the motion and Patrick second it. John said we are talking about 2.9 or 1.7 FTE which is a small amount of money. Roll call vote: Jim, no; Sallie, no; Patrick, yes; John, no; Willis, yes MOTION: Sallie move to approve reso 36 and to study the rear yard setback, second by John. Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes, Nora, no; Jim, no. Motion carried 4-2. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2014 12 P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 1 Vice-chair, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, John Whipple and Jim DeFrancia. Absent were Nora Berko and Sallie Golden. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 2014; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. 232 East Bleeker – Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Demolition of Existing Garage and Variances, Public Hearing, Cont’d from Oct. 15 th Amy said there was a review of this project in October. This is a 6,000 square foot lot with a Victorian Era home on it and a non-historic garage building. The application is to demolish the garage which staff supports. The applicant wishes to add onto the Victorian and move the building forward and put a basement under the site. The project is converting the single family to a duplex and setback variances are being requested and a FAR bonus and RDS variances. The major change since October is that the house is being moved forward more so than the last presentation and the benefit is that the project now meets the rear yard setback requirements. The applicant can now provide the four parking spaces on the site. There had been large cottonwoods in the front of the site and those have been taken down. A single family is allowed 3,240 square feet and a duplex is allowed 3,600 square feet. This is an additional 500 square feet because of doing a duplex on the site. On the corner sites everything is exposed to view and it really becomes a challenge to be sensitive and adding on appropriately in scale and architecturally and not to overwhelm the historic structure. Staff has suggested that the applicant detach the two units which allows more flexibility in the design of the new construction. If total detachment is not a good development model for them possibly the addition is linked to the house with a gabled roof form to speak more directly to the Victorian. Staff is in support of the relocation and demolition of the garage. They meet the side and rear setback requirements and do not meet the combined P13 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 2 requirement or the front requirement. In terms of the RDS’s they need two variances. The front porch does not meet the minimum requirement today and that should be waived because we do not want them to change the porch to meet today standards. They don’t meet the secondary mass requirement. They meet the connector in terms of length but it is too wide for the standard. The next issue is the FAR bonus and they already get 500 square feet because they are doing a duplex and with the requested 500 square feet that puts it at 1,000 square feet larger than the typical development for this site. Staff doesn’t feel this is the best use of the FAR bonus. The front porch is not original so there are opportunities to make improvements and there is some detailing that can be removed. The applicant is considering constructing a unique flue vent that was on top of the chimney. There are definite ways that this Victorian could be highlighted. Putting so much square footage behind it makes it feel like it is taking away from the Victorian and it is not achieving the level of integrity that we look for in many other projects. Staff is recommending a restudy again and continuation of the project. Patrick asked about the duplex. Amy said the duplex is fine but adding more square footage and other things could be a problem. Kim Raymond, architect presented Kim said the porch is the only thing in the setback and it is four feet into the setback and the porch will be restored. After the discussion at the last meeting we chose the flat roof option because the gable would be much larger. The gable roof would be 7 feet taller and it dwarfs the Victorian and the neighbors had a concern with it. The Victorian is the center of the property. We are asking that the link be wider. The link is 23 feet wide and 20 feet long. On the restoration the building has a lot of ginger bread in the gables and on the front porch which was added in the mid 80’d. That will be removed including the railing and we will leave the trim. Bill Boehringer, owner said the two letters of support have appreciated the elimination of the rear yard setback and the inclusion of the four onsite parking spaces. We were very sensitive how we developed around the historic resource. Kim said the porch roof will be brought back to its historic look and appearance. The secondary story elements between both the buidlings are roughly 19 feet apart. We have reduced the size and are asking for a 448 P14 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 3 square foot bonus. We did not pursue a detached duplex because we wanted the Victorian to stand out and there are issues with the cottonwood trees. Bill said when we bought this property the zoning allowed for a duplex as long as there is an historic asset on the property. We intend to restore the historic house to its integrity so that we could take advantage of the bonus. Our site coverage now is 48.9 and we are not exceeding the 50%. Amy said the combined setback is 10 feet and 15 is required. Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Exhibit I – two letters of support Willis identified the issues: Setback variances Floor Area bonuses RDS’s variances Changes to the porch Willis applauded the applicant for addressing the alley and the neighbors concerns. The variance in the front yard is warranted to achieve that goal. No one will be overwhelmed when walking down the sidewalk. The east and west variances are a modest request. Willis said he can support the variances as proposed. The RDS’s are also fine. The FAR is not progressively being pursued on this site. There is a significant setback at the eave height of the historic resource. The design standards 10.3,4,6 state that there should be distinction between the histories on the site and this building is a product of its own time. The applicant isn’t asking for a height variance. The windows are not similar enough and there is not enough information in the proposal about the materials other than to read it as a large mass. The windows and materials need restudied. Jim said he agrees about the setback bonuses and they are warranted. Jim said the flat roof is the way to go and it applies to the principle of not having the addition overwhelming the historic structure. Jim said he is not troubled by the proportions. P15 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 4 John said the setbacks make good sense and there is a healthy green belt in front. The RDS standards are in align with the project. When you look at Floor Area Bonus the new construction should be reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building’s form, materials or openings. We don’t want two to look the same. I have some reserves about the patterning of the windows and the proportions. Since the neighbors like the flat roof form that seems to be the direction but it is hard to achieve the bonus. Fenestration is dealt with at final and the windows should be addressed at that time. Patrick agreed that the setbacks are adequate if we can require a separated sidewalk for public safety. The project is close and if things are moved around a little the bonus could be warranted. Since the two trees are gone possibly the historic resource could be moved to the center of the lot so that it is in front of the rear addition and the glass areas in the back won’t be visible from Monarch which would hide the second part of the duplex. Willis said the flat roof is the way to go in terms of mass. We need to know what materials are where and what colors. John said we are in charge of mass and scale and the bonus is on the table and part of the bonus criteria is that the new construction is reflective of the patterns, openings etc. The problem is championing the historic resource to the point that the bonus is 100% justified. Willis said new construction should be reflective of patterns found in historic materials and openings. You can’t talk about mass without understanding the materials at the same time. Materials reflect the readings of the mass and scale. The FAR bonus has to come first before they go to final. The project doesn’t seem close enough the way the mass reads right now. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 232 E. Bleeker to January 14 th ; second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. 330 E. Main St. (Hotel Jerome) and 310 E. Main St. – Planned Development Project Review, Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Commercial Design Conceptual Review, Growth Management Review, Subdivision, Public Hearing P16 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 5 Debbie Quinn reviewed the affidavit of postings and they were adequately given and the applicant can proceed. Justin Barker said the application pertains to the Hotel Jerome and the Aspen Times building. The Hotel Jerome sits on a 47 1/2 thousand square foot lot and Aspen Times bldg. is a 5 ½ thousand square foot lot. Both properties are zoned commercial core and the Hotel Jerome has a planned development on top of it. The proposal is to demolish the non-historic portions of the Aspen Times Bldg. and construct a new detached lodge structure behind and combine the two parcels into one and vacating 56 feet of the alley that remains and redevelopment the existing court yard and continue the fourth story of the existing hotel along Bleeker Street and to reconfigure some of the existing lodge rooms within the current hotel. The project would add ten new units and 16 new bedrooms. HPC will act as a recommendation to City Council and Council will have the final decision. As part of the planned development the applicant is requesting four variations from the underlying zoning for this project. The first is for the maximum height to continue the fourth story along Bleeker Street. The average height would be between 50 and 54 feet as measured from the Bleeker Street side which the underlying zone would allow up to 40 feet with a commercial design review. The height of the existing fourth story on the hotel is about 55 feet at its highest point. Staff recognizes that the hotel is much larger than the surrounding development particularly the residential on the north and west sides. The Hotel Jerome is a lodge and an historic resource and it has been traditionally one of the tallest buildings and largest lot in town as well. The applicant is also proposing to set back the addition from the existing parapet walls in an effort to help reduce the visual impacts of the increased height. Staff supports the proposed height as a way to ensure the longevity of the hotel as a culturally significant building and for continued success as a hotel operation in town. The other three variations requested in regards to the minimum floor to floor height for the first floors of the restored Aspen Times Bldg. and the new structure behind it and for the fourth floor addition. Another one is for the maximum unit size for two of the new units in the fourth floor addition and the average lodge unit size in order to obtain a 2 ½ to 1 floor area ratio for the lodge component. Staff supports all three requests as well. Staff is also in support of the subdivisions and growth management. P17 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 6 For the commercial design standards staff finds that in general the standards and guidelines are met. There are a few items that staff would like to see as the project move forward. There needs to be a delivery area for the building which should show up on the plans for final review. There will also be a drop off area in front of the hotel. The applicant also needs to work with the Engineering Dept. for a sidewalk improvement plan prior to going to City Council. Staff supports the demolition of the non-historic addition on the Aspen times bldg. Staff support the project with one minor modification in the resolution section #4 to state issuance of the demolition permit. Justin said the most important portion of the Aspen Times Resource is the store front and how it appears on Main Street. The historic window on the east side of the building will also be brought back. Willis asked about the signage and if it is going to stay. Tony DuLucia, general manager said in 1986 he was the prep cook in the kitchen of the Hotel Jerome. In 1988 he was the caterer for the new ballroom and then in 1992 he became the general manager until the hotel was sold in 2007. In 2011 he came back. The history of this hotel is important for our community and we just did our 125 anniversary. We have come to realize that we need to have more flexible lodging units to accommodate the demand we are receiving from multi-generational families that are adults traveling with their adult children and grandchildren. We are running short in accommodating those people. We have people that want to come here and stay a month. With the purchase of the Aspen Times building the lawn will get bigger and look better. We have done our public outreach and have met with everyone around the hotel. Sarah Broughton, architect Sarah said she served on the HPC and the firm has received three awards from the HPC. 50% of Rowland Broughton’s work is hospitality. In 1890 the Hotel Jerome was built and between 1890 and 1898 the Aspen Times building was built. The Hotel Jerome is the center stage to Aspen life. The Aspen Times was originally called the Aspen Democratic Times. In 1987 there was a full gut remodel and the north wing was added including the community ball room. The Cortina Lodge was landmarked and preserved for employee housing and in the second phase there was a remodel. The third phase which is being presented is increasing lodge units, restoring the courtyard and restoring the Aspen Times. There are no resident P18 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 7 components to this proposed project. There are no free markets, no time shares, no fractional or condos. This is purely about preservation, lodging and completing the hotel. We are proposing 14 new units for a total of 107 units in the hotel and the additional units will provide lock offs and flexible accommodations for families. The hotel height at the highest point which is the north east corn is 54’6 inches. The parapet on Mill Street is at 48’11 inches. The nine lodging units would be an extension of the north wing. The extension for the units is set back. In the hotel the existing exercise room will be converted to a lodge unit. The sidewalk along Mill Street will be widened which includes new street trees. The courtyard lawn will be preserved and the outdoor seating. We will also vacate the alley behind the Aspen Times which allows us to split the Aspen Times from the addition. The Aspen Times has an historic front and an historic window on the east. On the first floor there will be commercial in the restored area and in the addition a changing room, fitness center and other lodge amenities. The second and third level of the Aspen Times addition includes four lodging units. It was also our intent to preserve the views up Hunter Valley. The addition behind the Aspen Times would be cladded wood. Sarah said the question came up about shadowing on Bleeker Street. A shadow study was completed and there was no significant change on Bleeker Street. The pool and Jacuzzi will be relocate. There is no below grade space where the Aspen Times Building is. Willis said the mechanicals will not be visible from the pedestrians. Sunny Vann The floor to ceiling heights are codified in the commercial core zone district. The intent being to establish a minimum ground floor height for closely emulated historic heights of our buildings downtown. The requirement is 13 feet. Our proposal is 11.3 feet. On the rear addition the floor heights are 9 feet because it is not visible from the street and it is a new addition. We have asked to vary those heights to hold the overall height of the addition down. The overall height is 30 or 31 feet and it is 9 feet on the ground floor level in the addition behind the Aspen Times. The addition to the Hotel Jerome is 8 ½ feet. We are asking variances for the existing Aspen times, the ground floor and upper floor of the addition to the Aspen Times and the north wing fourth floor extension of the Hotel Jerome. P19 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 8 Willis asked about the maximum unit size. Sunny said the cap size of the lodge units is at 1,500 square feet. If you have lockouts with separate keys it is calculated by the size of the largest combination of units. We are over the 1,500 square foot limit. We are over because we are trying to provide a flexible layout with individual units that can stand on their own. We have two units that are 1,900 square feet but the individual size is about 600 square feet. Sunny said the units in the Aspen Times building are four separate units and they are not multiple rentals. Tony explained that they had two long term rentals and they were there six weeks and they were always requesting some type of kitchen facility. Debbie Quinn asked the applicant about their public outreach and if it was all included in the packet and if not it would need to be supplemented. John asked about the mechanicals on the addition behind the Aspen Times building that are in the view plane or line of sight. Could it be moved further back on the building so it could be out of sight. Sarah said we were trying to be respectful of all angels but we can look at minimizing it. Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Scott Davidson has been here since 1981 and the Hotel Jerome is an extremely important building to Aspen. In 1985 the first remodel occurred. We should thank the current owners who have done what they did and this new addition is done with great taste. The step back is really a continuation of the hotel itself. The Aspen Times building being separated and standing alone is excellent. We need to support the owners to move as time has moved as there are new requirements in order to stay competitive. Bill Guth said he has a property at 202 N. Monarch - Lot 2 of the original Blue Vic subdivision. I am an advocate of historic preservation in Aspen. The lot fronts Bleeker Street. The addition to the north of the back of this building is our primary concern and causes issues of shading and will enhance the ice rink effect that Bleeker is prone to. There will be more P20 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 9 deliveries and more traffic. We are also concerned about the activities on the balconies of the north side which can cause a disturbance for myself and my neighbors. Bill Tomsich, president of Stay Aspen Snowmass. This is my 20 th winter here and I have witnessed a lot of changes to the Hotel in the past 20 years. We are fortunate to have this iconic treasure that is so well cared for. Relative to other properties over 100 years old the Hotel Jerome is in rare company. In Denver you have the Brown Palace, Oxford Hotel and the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park and the Broadmore in Colorado Springs. Flexible units is very important to meet the demand throughout the years. Andrea Heffner, director sales and marketing for the Hotel Jerome. It is such a pleasure being at the hotel and this is my first smaller brand experience and I am able to hear the feedback from all different types of clients on the re-design. The hotel has local connections with weddings and birthdays etc. Flexible lodging is coming up more and more often. Unfortunately we have to turn a lot of them away because we don’t have the ability to accommodate them. Elizabeth Stewart, vacation specialist at Stay Aspen Snowmass. I grew up here and have a strong connection to the Hotel Jerome as I used to work there. I clink onto Aspen history. I recently took a tour and I was very impressed with the remodel. Even the hinges in the bathrooms are original. I had a client call that needed space that wasn’t available in town anywhere and it would be perfect if there were some flexible units to accommodate our guests. Bill Boehringer 2082 E. Bleeker & Monarch Street Bill thanked the applicant for restoring the Hotel Jerome to its current luster. IN the CC zone buildings on the south side of the street are limited to 28 feet in height and on the north side 38 feet and 40 feet with special review. Adding further height on Monarch and Bleeker is a safety issue. Possibly it should be set back further for safety issues. To accommodate special uses a remodel can occur internally without asking for 50 some feet in height. Exhibit I – Letter from Carl and Katie Bergman Exhibit II – Letter from Mirte Mallory Vice-chair Willis Pember closed the public hearing. P21 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 10 Rebuttal of public comment. Sunny said they discussed changing the stop signs with the Engineering Dept. numerous times and they have been emphatic about not putting one the intersection. We did the shadow studies which indicate no significant increase in the shadowing as the result of the addition on the north wing. In terms of increased traffic we are not anticipating any with the additional units. Our main objective is to do no harm on Bleeker and Monarch. On the balconies they come out 3 feet and they were set back to accommodate the reduction in the view line impact and reduce the visual impact. Issues Variance for the fourth floor in the corner. Minimum floor to floor has been reduced from what code requires for the Aspen Times building and also the addition to the Aspen Times bldg. and the fourth floor addition. Maximum unit size. Average lodge size variance in order to obtain the 2 ½ to 1 FAR Willis said this project is exciting and there is a lot invested in this icon. We are all wanting this to be successful. The minimum floor to floor is OK. The primary goal of PD is to relate the development to the surrounding context by varying dimensional requirements. You are asking for a height variance in an effort to create a better connection to the surrounding contexts. I do not see the betterment there. Possibly vary the heights of the cornices on the Bleeker Street side. Jim said the average lot size, maximum unit size, minimum floor to floor are all fine. On the issue of the maximum height I don’t have a problem with it because the height is already there. It is not making it any higher in the aggregate. Adding lodging is a key community goal and it contributes to the viability of the historic asset. Jim said he supports all four variances being requested. John agreed with Jim. If there is one building in town that should be allowed to go up in town it is this crown jewel. It is a well thoughtful and planned out application. I appreciate the shading study and there is not much shadow change. I am also in favor of the four variances. Patrick said this is a good design. On the height I can go either way on. On the addition to the Aspen Times our guidelines say the historic addition P22 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 11 should not be over shadowed and I find that the way it is designed now it is significantly over bearing. Maybe if it is stepped back it would appear so massive in comparison to the Aspen Times. Jim said the presence of the Aspen Times and its awareness and what you see is the fact that it is right up on the street. Even though you have the larger structure behind it I don’t think it takes the eye away and it does not detract from the historic significance of the building. Willis said it is a nebulous design having the balconies facing the inside of Carl’s pharmacy. The balconies have no view. John asked staff if the signage could be maintained on the Aspen Times building. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #37 with the following conditions: Study the setback on the fourth floor north addition on the north side. Study the relationship of the Aspen Times addition to the Aspen Times historic resource i.e. balconies. Consider implementing the Aspen Times signage from the 1890’s. Motion second by Jim. Roll call vote: Jim,yes; Patrick, yes; John, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned t 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P23 II.B. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 1 of 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 229 W. Smugger/426 N. Second –Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 7, 2015 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second is a duplex on a historic landmark lot. 229 W. Smuggler is a Victorian era home, built in 1888 and 426 N. Second was added in the 1970s Both units are in the same ownership. In August, HPC reviewed a proposal to physically separate the homes and add a shared garage along the alley. The project also involved a forward and westward relocation of the Victorian and a request for setback variances. The application was continued for restudy in order to re-visit and refine the relocation plan and placement of the addition to the Victorian. A proposed new dormer on the rear of the historic resource was called out as too significant an alteration to the original roof form. In preparation for an October HPC review, the applicant decided to pursue total demolition of the 1970s era unit, and added CCY Architects to their team for design of a replacement structure. HPC reviewed the project and was split on various concerns including whether the Victorian should be moved or not, where the addition to the Victorian should be placed, and whether the dormer on the rear of the house was appropriate. The hearing was continued to November, and then again to January to make further progress on HPC’s direction. P24 III.A. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 2 of 11 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT The project has been redesigned so that the Victorian will not be moved and the side addition is reduced. The garage proposed along the alley is single stall. Staff finds that the guidelines are sufficiently met and that there has been good progress and compromise. The applicant is voluntarily taking on numerous restoration efforts that are needed to preserve the house. APPLICANT: 229 W. Smuggler LLC and 426 N. Second LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, Ruggles, Mabe, Terrell Architecture, and CCY Architects. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-17-031 and -032. ADDRESS: 229 W. Smuggler and 426 N. Second Street, Units A and B, Second and Smuggler Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” There are several older photographs of the site available at the Aspen Historical Society, such as the 1963 photo on the following page. The historic building is currently P25 III.A. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 3 of 11 relatively intact in form and materials. Changes that have occurred include construction of a cold roof, addition of a small dormer on the west, replacement of original windows and modification of the front porch railing. The applicant proposes to reverse all of these alterations, which is very commendable. Specifics will be reviewed at Final. The request to move the house on the site has been dropped, though it will be lifted for basement excavation and a new foundation. It is generally HPC’s goal to leave historic buildings in their original position. At the last hearing, some HPC members had concerns with the addition of a dormer on the south side of the house. Originally, this was proposed as a large gable roof form. It was subsequently reduced to a shed. A photo of the rear of the house and a proposed elevation are shown below. P26 III.A. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 4 of 11 Staff finds that the dormer has been minimized and is secondary and not out of character with the Victorian design, in conformance with guideline 7.7. Throughout the previous discussions, staff has not supported the construction of a new addition along the east side of the Victorian. Generally, we believe HPC’s policy is to connect to the rear of a historic building, however the redesign in front of HPC includes several new ideas which we find address earlier concerns. First, the roofline of the addition has been rotated so that the gable runs east-west, rather than north-south. We find that this is less visually competitive with the Victorian. Instead of creating a glass link between the addition and the house, the addition tucks under the historic eaveline, reducing the size of the addition and eliminating the need to move the house or grant a side setback variance. Staff also acknowledges that, in the revised proposal, the composition of the site plan preserves the setting of the house from the street perspectives. The two residential units that are permitted to be on this property are completely detached from each other and the project has been revised to include a one car garage with an lift to store a second car at the basement level. The site coverage is not overwhelming the property. 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. January 2015 October 2014 P27 III.A. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 5 of 11 The roof plan of the previous and current proposals are illustrated below. Staff supports Conceptual approval for the project, however there are a few areas that should be amended for Final review. First, staff recommends a reduction in the size of the lightwell proposed on the east side of the Victorian, near the front porch. This has a visual impact at the front of the house and affects the sense that the yard meets the foundation of the building in a traditional way. The proposed lightwell is 5’8” x 9’, where the typical minimum size required by building codes is 3’ x 3’. The proposal conflicts with guideline 9.7. Staff also has a concern with the stairway on the north (front) of the proposed addition. The stairs are wider than those leading to the porch of the historic house and should be reduced so that the addition does not compete with the Victorian and conflict with language in guidelines 10.8 and 10.10. The proposed breakfast room/office addition is approximately 300 square feet but has exits on three sides. Staff recommends that the north door and stair be eliminated or otherwise minimized from what has been shown for August 2014 October 2014 January 2015 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). The size of a lightwell should be minimized. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. P28 III.A. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 6 of 11 ON-SITE RELOCATION this level of review. We also have concerns with the door/window/stair changes shown on the rear façade of the Victorian, which can be addressed at Final under more detailed review criteria. 26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: The house will be temporarily lifted for basement excavation, then set back in place. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit the standard assurances that relocation will proceed with care, including a $30,000 deposit with the City during the construction process. P29 III.A. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 7 of 11 SETBACK VARIANCES RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The applicant requests an east sideyard setback reduction of 5’, above and below grade, for the garage. The garage meets the rear setback requirement at grade, but requires a 5’ reduction for the basement level. The applicant requests a rear setback reduction of 4’, above and below grade, for the new unit. The applicant requests a 6’7” reduction of the minimum required distance between buildings at the basement level only. The project provides the minimum 10’ separation above grade. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: HPC has the authority to consider setback variances if they allow for better placement of the new construction relative to the historic building. Staff finds that the requested setback variances do place the new construction appropriately. The Victorian is not being moved. Ample open area is provide on the north, west and south sides of the property, the two residential units are detached from each other, and impacts on the large cottonwoods along the streets are being avoided. The historic structure should not be modified to meet the Residential Design Standards, and existing, non-compliant conditions are permitted to be maintained. The project does not meet the Build-to-line standard, which directs more of the construction to be close to the front setback line. Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this P30 III.A. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 8 of 11 standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard. In order to grant variances, HPC must find that the proposal will: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff supports a waiver of the Build-to-line standard because preserving open yard on the sides of this larger scaled Victorian is preferable to sliding the new unit into that space. There are two windows on the new structure which do not meet the Residential Design Standards. The appropriateness of a variance will be addressed at Final review. =============================================================== STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby grants the following setback reductions: • An east sideyard setback reduction of 5’, above and below grade, for the garage. • A rear yard setback reduction of 5’ for the garage, at the basement level. • A rear setback reduction of 4’, above and below grade, for the new unit. • A reduction of the minimum required distance between buildings of 6’7” at the basement level only. 2. For Final review, reduce the size of the northeast lightwell to the minimum required by building codes. 3. For Final review, eliminate or minimize the exterior stair on the north face of the addition. 4. A report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structure can be moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structure, must be submitted with the building permit application. In addition the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. 5. HPC hereby grants a waiver from the Residential Design Standard related to Build-to line. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of January 7, 2015, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The P31 III.A. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 9 of 11 Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. EXHIBITS : Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: August 6 th minutes and October 22 nd minutes Exhibit C: Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 229 W. Smuggler, Conceptual review 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.7 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). The size of a lightwell should be minimized. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. P32 III.A. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 10 of 11 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. P33 III.A. HPC Review 1.7.2015 229 W. Smuggler Page 11 of 11 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. P34 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 229 W. SMUGGLER AND 426 N. SECOND STREET, UNITS A AND B, SECOND AND SMUGGLER SUBDIVISION , CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2015 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-17-031 and -032 WHEREAS, the applicant, 229 W. Smuggler LLC and 426 N. Second LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, Ruggles, Mabe, Terrell Architecture, and CCY Architects, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 229 W. Smuggler and 426 N. Second Street, Units A and B, Second and Smuggler Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a, Variances; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standards according to Section 26.410.020.D; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on August 6 th , 2014, October 22 nd , 2014 and January 7, 2015. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. P35 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, and Variance approval for 229 W. Smuggler and 426 N. Second Street, Units A and B, Second and Smuggler Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby grants the following setback reductions: • An east sideyard setback reduction of 5’, above and below grade, for the garage. • A rear yard setback reduction of 5’ for the garage, at the basement level. • A rear setback reduction of 4’, above and below grade, for the new unit. • A reduction of the minimum required distance between buildings of 6’7” at the basement level only. 2. For Final review, reduce the size of the northeast lightwell to the minimum required by building codes. 3. For Final review, eliminate or minimize the exterior stair on the north face of the addition. 4. A report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the structure can be moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structure, must be submitted with the building permit application. In addition the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. 5. HPC hereby grants a waiver from the Residential Design Standard related to Build-to line. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of January 7, 2015, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 7th day of January, 2015. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ___________________________________ _____________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P36 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 Willis said the garage fascia should be left alone and cleaned up as it is more in character with the 60's. Patrick agreed with Willis. MOTION: Jim moved to approve Resolution #23 for final approval for 120 Red Mountain Red with the conditions delineated in the staff recommendation and an additional condition of preserving the balcony pendant and retention of the garage fascia. We approve the link roof height and that the roof fabric appear to be tar and gravel like EPTM. Motion second by John. Roll call vote: Jim, yes; John, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 4-0. 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second — Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing Debbie Quinn said the posting is in order and Melissa Mabe attested that the posting is still up. Debbie said with that confirmation the applicant can proceed. Amy said this is a duplex on a corner site next to Triangle Park. The lot is 9,000 square feet. There is a large Victorian home on the property built 1888 and in the 1980's an addition was made that is accessed facing Second Street. The new property owner would like to make modifications and detach the homes so that there are two free standing homes. On the non- historic home they would like to remove the connection to the historic house and clean up the hole left behind and create a one story link to a new garage on the alley. They are supposed to have four parking spots and they are providing two which is acceptable. There is a setback variance requested on the east side of the garage where it comes too close to the property line but it is otherwise conforming. With regard to the Victorian staff is appreciative of the idea of detaching the two homes from each other but there is concern that the new proposal to the Victorian house is in a location that has never been touched before. The Victorian is to be picked up and moved forward five feet and westward five feet. We don't have a problem with the forward movement because it does create separation and that could be beneficial. Staff is not supporting moving the house westward. The reason to do that is to slide an addition alongside the house that we do not support. The little one story piece alongside the Victorian is the proposed new construction and it is touching a side of the house that is currently pristine. We would prefer 4P37 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 that they continue to work with the hole behind the house. The front porch has been changed slightly and we have some historic photos that can be used for the restoration. There is a dormer on the west side of the roof that will go away. They would also like to do a better rendition of the historic windows. There is a cold roof on the house that will be removed and a thin roof profile would be a great improvement to the building. On the other hand there is a proposed new gable end on the back side of the house that doesn't exist there now and a skylight that doesn't balance out with the restoration they are proposing. We think it is not a net gain. Staff recommends a restudy and continuation: We feel the new construction should probably go in the back of the house even if all the homes touch each other. Don Ruggles, architect and Melissa Mabe presented. Don said the owner Mr. and Mrs. Dahler have a commitment to restore the historic asset to the absolute very best quality they can. They own both properties. They need to add a little bit of square footage to make this work for them. We are trying to make the addition of its time but still have a sense that it respects the main body of the historical asset. It will have a zinc roof. The owner would like a dormer on the back side to replace the skylight. We can certainly work with staff and find a different shape for the dormer. We feel the dormer is an important ad to make the square footage work for us and getting rid of the 1960's sky light. Melissa said there is a basement in both houses. The basement in the Victorian will be a little larger and a better basement. Willis asked what the drive is to separate the two houses. Don said where the two houses join is in need of cleaning up etc. There is a porch that doesn't fit, ice buildup etc. If it is separated we can clean it up and get better sun and we are letting the yard come into the rear. It will create a cleaner expression to the historical asset. There might be an ownership issue down the road having separate owners. Mr. Dahler said the addition was done in 1972 and it was classified as a duplex. In 1979 it was converted to a two unit condominium. 5P38 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6 2014 Vice-chair, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Patrick asked if the addition was looked at being placed behind the house. Don said we looked at a number of options. We are willing to work with staff on that matter and find the right balance. Mr. Dahler said this plan gives us a private yard in the back as part of the scheme. I'm surprised people don't live in their Victorians. The gable allows for a master suite on the second floor. Don said they are supportive of all the guidelines. Melissa said there are many precedence in Aspen that have a much greater impact on the Victorians that have passed through this board. We have really pared down the addition as minimal as we could. John asked about the siding on the addition. Melissa said the addition is designed to be very clean and succinct and the form is respectful of the asset but it feels different and of its time. John said staff brings up some valid points and you have more land to play with. Melissa said we are trying to preserve the openness on the corner by not proposing an addition on that side so the link to Triangle Park is as strong as ever. With the dormer we were trying to let the two buildings communicate and provide David with an upstairs that he can use. I feel we have been very sympathetic to the historic asset. We can try to make it a little smaller. Vice-chair Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: On-site relocation Setback variances Residential design standards are off the table Mass and scale of the addition 6P39 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 Willis said the strategy is sound for this project and it meets the intent but not the letter of the guidelines. I understand staff's concern about the amount of disturbance to the original fabric on the historic building. The addition is very small. If the Victorian is movable so is that linkage and volume. For us to pass this tonight we would have to believe this is the best ultimate solution to this problem and you have some latitude to work with that would get staff on board. The section in the guidelines on linkages say ten feet long and no wider than 6 feet. That serves the purpose of minimizing the intrusion into the original fabric. Relocation, demolition, setback variances are all manageable for this commission. Jim said the fundamental approach is very sound and attractive. I particularly like the fact that they are not trying to do a lot of stuff below grade and it keeps the historic structure quite distinctive. There is probably room for a little refinement. Patrick said he agrees with Willis and Jim. It is a good start and the design is coming close. I would recommend getting together with staff and flush out the details. Amy pointed out that we want to see some other concepts as to where the office can go. What is your tolerance to moving the house a little further or perhaps putting a little more construction on top of the garage. John said he likes the delicateness of the addition in the back and subordinate to the front. Adding more square footage doesn't seem like that is necessarily the program the applicant wants to achieve because you are going to be living in the historic resource. There is a lot of good in this project and a restudy is always beneficial. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second public hearing and conceptual development to September 10, 2014. Staff and applicant to re-visit and refine the placement of the addition to the Victorian and review the new position of the Victorian; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried. John said the consensus of the addition of the dormer on the back is possibly altering the historic fabric a little bit too much and maybe there is a way to achieve a less dramatic transformation of the roof line. 7P40 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 6. 2014 Willis said the more minimal alteration to the historic property the better. 28 Smuggler Grove Road - Conceptual Major Development, Floor area bonus, Setback variances, parking waiver, demolition of non-historic additions, relocation, residential design standards variances. Continued public hearing. Sara said there are some requested setback variance; 500 square foot FAR bonus; a technical residential design standard variance; relocation of the historic resource; partial demolition of the non-historic addition and a variance from the required width of a parking space. On July 9th, the last meeting UPC requested a restudy of the new single family home that is proposed for the site. This property has a landmark that was moved at some point to this location in 1976. In 1987 the entire area was annexed into the city and the property was added to the inventory in 2008. The proposal is to pick up the historic home and move it on the site and to construct a new single family home that is detached on the site. There were concerns voiced by the neighbors regarding the parking situation. There was a request for a waiver of one parking space and they are required to have four on-site parking spaces and they were proposing three. The applicant has looked at the plan and has moved some things round and now they are proposing four parking spaces on-site and one space is four inches off the required width. Because of the four inches they would need a parking waiver from that standard but they do have four on-site parking spaces. Staff confirmed with Engineering that they are approved for two curb cuts for this property. On July 9th it was suggested that the applicant look at reducing the width of the addition behind the historic resource a little more to be a little more subservient to the width of the historic resource. They could research this and bring it back for final. Staff raised concerns with the second story deck that is located between the historic home and the new residence. We are recommending that be removed for final review. There is space at the rear of the historic resource and to have the deck extended back there. We are supportive of the re-design and they are pulling architectural features from the historic resource and they are not imitating the landmark. They have gable roofs and forms reminiscent of what you see on the historic resource. Staff is concerned with the roof top planter box that seems to add un- necessary mass to the front fagade and we recommend that be relocated for final review. Staff is supportive of the demolition and relocation. Staff 8P41 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 in size slightly. We tried to integrate the new design with the existing. We are generally making a better use of the addition. The scalloped shingles on the front will remain and the windows have been unified. We have also matched the roofs and the shed will remain and be restored. Each neighbor will share half the shed. Chairperson, Jay Mayin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Nora said the underground setbacks are appropriate and the project looks more harmonious. The roof line is now more in line. Jay identified the issues: Foundation Side yard variance Variance for the shed on the back. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #31 with conditions. Motion second by Jay. Roll call vote: Sallie,yes; Jay,yes; Willis,yes; Nora,yes. Motion carried 4-0. 229 W. Smuggler/426 N. Second — Conceptual Major Development, On- Site Relocation and Variances, cont'd public hearing Debbie said she reviewed the affidavits of notice and they are appropriate. Exhibit I. Amy said this house and is on Triangle Park and has an addition that was built in the 1970's. It is also on a corner lot. That addition is linked directly to the back of the house and has an entry that faces the side street. The proposed addition to the Victorian attaches to the east side of the building and it is not properly placed. The guidelines allow for the possibility of an addition that connects to the side of a house but that is not our preference. HPC has.a strong history of acquiring additions to attach to the back side of an historic home mostly because that is often considered a less primary fagade particularly when you are dealing with an interior lot as it helps conceal the new construction at the back of the lot and allows the walls that are visible from the street to remain as untouched as possible. HPC asked the applicant to look at their options and look at the site plan in general. 2 P42 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 Amy said the new proposal is to demolish the 1970's second unit on the site. The replacement unit is detached and oriented in the direction of the side street and a two car garage on the alley. The proposal to the Victorian house is unchanged. They are still adding to the side of the Victorian. We acknowledge that this is a small addition and the proposed new architecture is great but we feel strongly that the addition should not be on the side of the house. In all of the cases that the applicant showed those cases were unique. They don't have an alley and not the typical lot depth and have something else going on. We feel HPC has leaned toward additions on the back and that is the most discrete impactful location. In order to do the addition they intend to pick up the house and move it and we are not sure that is the best purpose for relocating buildings. Staff is also concerned about moving the house toward the drip line of the cotton woods. The Parks Department has not commented on the tree issue. Staff has no problem with the removal of the non-historic addition. They are required to have a street oriented front door and that means that it should face Smuggler but they have it facing the side street. They could slip the porch in the direction of Smuggler to resolve that issue. Staff recommends continuation because the addition is not appropriate for the Victorian. Mitch Haas said the addition is about 230 square feet and we aren't using all the allowable floor area on the property and not asking for an FAR bonus. There is 300 square feet left on this property that we are not using. The applicant is not interested in maximizing the square footage. It is about livability. We have made the roof a shed roof dormer and shrunk it east/west and shrunk the height. The skylight has also been removed. We were asked to restudy the location of the addition. We did do that. Every option of putting the addition on the rear we found that it was less sensitive and less appropriate in this case. Mitch said the guideline that we were told we were not addressing is 10.8 where it says additions should be placed to the rear. It says place the addition to the rear of the building or set it back to minimize the visual impact of the historic structure. Our proposal sets the addition back 27 feet from the front fagade which is set back ten feet from the property line. Our take is that the back is very prominent as it sits on a corner. It was our intent to keep the corner open. Putting the addition to the back doesn't function properly. This plan is the most sensitive place to put the addition. We are detaching the two buildings that exist today. You can only see the addition from straight on. We intend to fully restore the historic house. We will pick P43 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 the building up and put a basement under it and move it five feet forward and five feet over which helps with the siting and prominence of the building. We feel there needs to be a balance between the guidelines. Owner, David Dowler said this is a 90 foot wide lot. The back yard is important and we want a private back yard. We have talked to all of our neighbors. With the addition your eye will follow the access. We don't want to shut off the neighbors by putting a large addition to the back. With the balloon frame the first floor ceiling height is 10.5 and the second floor you feel compressed. With the balloon frame you can do a 9 foot ceiling on the first floor and open up the second floor ceiling. I feel we have worked hard and we have respected history and the architecture. Melissa Mabe-Sabanosh said with our studies we determined it better to do something subservient to the historic asset. There is a wonderful separation between the two houses. If we put the addition on the back wall of the historic house we would destroy more of the houses fabric. The mild hyphen is quite small and humble as opposed to putting the addition in the back. Patrick was seated at 5:30 p.m. John Scheme from CCY said the historic house is at 25'6" to the ridge which is lower than the height limit. Willis thanked the owner for his enthusiasm for architecture. David Dowler said originally they wanted to sell the 1972 unit. After much thought they decided to take off the 1972 addition. The new addition is very simplistic. Jay commented that the connector is 4'6" and HPC likes a bigger connector. David said that was brought up at the last meeting and because of the problem that we have with the east setback that the 4'6" would be an acceptable type of accommodation. Jay said the constraint is on the east side. The requirement of the garage is creating a problem. Jay said the drip line needs to be confirmed by the Parks Department. 4 P44 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 Melissa said we are also moving the house away from the drip line. We will make sure no trees get harmed. Sallie asked if the connector could be ten feet. Mitch said if the HPC wants to give a variance for that we could have the connector ten feet. The house would then align with the garage. Amy said when you have something small I wouldn't suggest making the connector larger. John said they can study and adjust the entrance. Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Jay identified the issues: Side addition Residing of the historic home Drip line of the trees Garage New home Nora said she is struggling with the historic fabric being taken out. Nora concurred with staff's recommendation that this is an historic resource that is unchanged. Nora said she is not sure side additions have been successful in the past. Willis said the biggest issue is the addition. Willis said another concern is the shed dormer which is in violation of the historic fabric. Guideline 10.8 and 10.10 address the addition. Not all additions have to go behind the historic structure. Conceptually the addition to the side is appropriate. It is pushed back as far as it can go and it is small. The project is:well done. Willis suggested site diagrams for the next meeting. Jay said his issue is the integrity of the site and the fact that the historic resource is being moved. The original site is important to preserve. On top of that you are adding an addition to the side of the historic resource. I can't support moving the building and putting the addition on the side. The 5 P45 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2014 eastern wall is prominent and exposed. Two uncovered parking spots may allow for a better site plan. Sallie said which is more important keeping it in the exact location or making the historic house more visible. Melissa said they can leave the historic house in its original location. Willis said he is OK with the east addition but his major concern is the violation of the existing fabric and minimizing that. The dormer is a big deal and it is an appendage on an historic resource. Sallie also said her biggest concern is the dormer and the historic fabric being compromised to the east. Patrick recommended continuation. Mitch said the cold roof has to come off so it will not be the same as you are looking at today. We don't know what is under the roof. The skylight has to be removed and the proposed dormer is necessary to make the second floor space livable as opposed to an addition in the back. One way or another somewhere on this building to do an addition the historic fabric has to be touched. The back is visible from the alley and 2nd Street. If it is in the corner where we are proposing it is the least visible location. We are also doing a lot of restoration on this building as well. We are fixing the roof and the entire front porch. We are doing all of this without asking for a FAR bonus. We are increasing the integrity of this building. The.charge of the board is to balance things. MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 229 West Smuggler/426 N. Second to November 12`h, second by Jay. All in favor motion carried. Jay said he feels the project will get better and the balance will be more in the middle than it is now. The board gave you sold direction. 417/421 W. Hallam — Final Major Development, Public Hearing Debbie said the affidavit and public notice are in order and the applicant can proceed. 6 P46 III.A.  1   Dowler Project Updates – December 18, 2014 229 W Smuggler & 426 N Second Street The following provides a summary of the current proposal and its differences from previous iterations. These notes should be reviewed and considered in connection with the provided plans set dated 12.18.2014. Unit B (229 W Smuggler; The Historic Asset): 1. It is no longer proposed that the historic resource be relocated to the north or to the west. Instead, the historical house will remain in its current, historical location. (It will be lifted, moved temporarily into the westerly side yard and then placed back onto a new, properly engineered foundation at its historic location and height.) 2. The breakfast nook addition previously shown to the east side with a connecting element to the asset has been reduced in size, largely by eliminating the connector piece altogether (and, thus, allowing the historic asset to remain in its current location). This addition now has a gable roof whose ridge orients east/west (was north/south) and connects directly to the historic asset. The need for a side yard setback variance associated with the addition is eliminated by having reduced the size of the addition (i.e., elimination of connector element). 3. The garage addition to the south has been reduced from a two-car garage that serves the two units to a single-bay garage that will hold two cars with one on a lower level (there will be an internal lift within the garage structure). The garage will serve Unit B. This change requires the existing parking deficit for Unit A to be maintained but provides a singe on-site parking space for the two units (which is one more on-site space than exists today). 4. The Unit B garage requires a 5’-0” east side yard setback variance, along only the garage portion of the addition; this is the same request as was included with the prior plan 5. The shed dormer on the upper level of the south (alley-facing) façade will remain as designed in the previous submittal, which is substantially downsized from the gable design originally proposed. 6. The owners continue to be excited about rehabilitating the historic asset and will do all of the remedial work proposed in the previous submittals, including: a. Removing the existing non-historic elements that have been added to the house over the years, including: i. Removal of the ventilated/cold roof assembly that was added for energy efficiency by previous owners. (Coincidentally, while this cold roof is more energy efficient than was the original roof, it also holds more snow and has P47 III.A.  2   likely contributed to the ongoing structural damage due to additional roof load.) ii. Removal of the non-historical dormer from western (S. Second Street) side of historic roof and repair roof to match historic condition. iii. Removal of the skylight from the south (alley side) and replacing it with the shed dormer (same shed dormer mentioned above, at #5). iv. Removal of the existing Unit A connection to the historic resource on the alley side (also visible from both S Second and W Smuggler Streets) and repair the area of damage from the addition of this non-historic element, restoring the original, detached historic appearance. v. Repairing the existing historic brick chimney. vi. Restoring the front porch posts and architectural details to match historic appearance. b. Repairing all base/skirt boards that are destroyed from dry rot. c. The historic home will be lifted and a new foundation will be placed under it. Great care will be taken to reuse the existing historic stone foundation as veneer stone for the new foundation. d. Other repair and restoration work will be completed as needed and in coordination with the HPC staff and monitor given that the house had been under single ownership for the last 40+ years with seemingly no upkeep or maintenance. Unit A (426 S Second Street, Non-Historic Structure): 7. Unit A, has not changed much from our previous submittal. Changes noted here are since the last time HPC reviewed this unit. The Unit A gable has been rotated 90 degrees (to now run north/south) so as to allow the building to conform to the Residential Design Standards, which require a single-story street-facing element and the entry to orient to Smuggler Street, rather than Second Street. 8. Unit A requires a rear yard setback variances that matches its existing non- conformity to the south (alley side). That said, Unit A will not extend as far to the north as existing, where it connects to the historic resource. The proposed variance for Unit A was, in a way, suggested by the HPC as a way to help resolve issues that result from maintaining the historic location of the Unit B asset. Unit A will conform to the 10’ setback requirement along the westerly (S Second Street) property line. 9. The proposed location of new Unit A was reviewed with the City Forester on December 15, 2014 and found to be generally acceptable. Thank you for your consideration. Should any additional information be required, please do not hesitate to contact Haas Land Planning, LLC. P48 III.A. 229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET UNIT 'A' F.A.R. CALCULATIONS PROPERTY DATA lot size 9000.00 allowable F.A.R. 4080.00 maximum allowable site coverage 40.00% FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS proposed Basement: linear ft. of basement wall w/ 9'-0" ceiling height 152.00 Total basement wall area 1368.00 window well areas (18'-6"' total width of egress wells @ 7'-0" exposed walls)129.00 Total exposed wall area 0.09 Total basement square footage (gross)1050.00 Basement square footage counted towards F.A.R.99.01 First Floor: Total First Floor square footage 723.00 First Floor square footage counted towards F.A.R.723.00 Second Floor: Total Second Floor square footage 660.00 Second Floor square footage counted towards F.A.R.660.00 Garage: Garage square footage counted towards F.A.R. (total first floor SF minus 1st 250SF in garage is exempt, 2nd 250SF is counted at 50%) Total: TOTAL FAR for Unit A 1482.01 TOTAL FAR for Unit B 2551.81 TOTAL FAR for lot 4033.82 DIFFERENCE FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWED (4080 - TOTAL FAR for lot)46.18 P49 III.A. 229 WEST SMUGGLER STREET UNIT 'B' F.A.R. CALCULATIONS PROPERTY DATA lot size 9000.00 allowable F.A.R. 4080.00 maximum allowable site coverage 40.00% FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS proposed Basement: linear ft. of basement wall w/ 9'-0" ceiling height 251.16 linear ft. of basement wall w/ 11'-7" ceiling height 0.00 Total basement wall area 2260.44 basement wall area exposed w/ 2'-0" exposure above grade 502.32 window well areas (16.5' total width of egress wells @ 7'-0" exposed walls)115.50 Total exposed wall area 0.27 Total basement square footage 1775.13 Basement square footage counted towards F.A.R.485.18 First Floor: Total First Floor square footage 1307.71 First Floor square footage counted towards F.A.R.1307.71 Second Floor: Total Second Floor square footage 671.00 Second Floor square footage counted towards F.A.R.671.00 Garage: Garage square footage counted towards F.A.R. (total first floor SF minus 1st 250SF in garage is 425.85 exempt, 2nd 250SF is counted at 50%) 87.93 Total: TOTAL FAR for Unit B 2551.81 TOTAL FAR remaining for Unit A (4080 - Unit B total)1528.19 TOTAL FAR for Unit A + HPC 500 Bonus FAR 2028.19 P50 III.A. CO V E R 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A0.0 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T HI S T O R I C H O M E R E S T O R A T I O N & A D D I T I O N , A N D RE P L A C E M E N T O F N O N - H I S T O R I C H O M E H. P . C . C O N C E P T U A L P L A N S U B M I T T A L AS P E N , C O L O R A D O SHEET INDEX A0.0 COVER A0.1 PLAN OF EXISTING CONDITION A0.2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING CONDITION A0.3 SITE PLAN A1.0 LOWER LEVEL PLAN A1.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A1.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A1.3 ROOF PLAN A3.0 UNIT 'B' ELEVATIONS A3.1 UNIT 'B' ELEVATIONS A3.2 UNIT 'A' ELEVATIONS A3.3 STREET ELEVATIONS A3.4 PERSPECTIVES P51 III.A. L O T A L O T B L O T C L O T D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 25 24 26 UN I T A UN I T B TO T A L AR E A 9, 0 0 0 ± S. F . 7 8 8 3 7 8 8 3 7 8 8 3 7883 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 5 78 8 5 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 3 7 88 4 CO 7 .9 ' 9 . 2 ' 6 .0 ' 2 4 . 0 ' 2 8 .0 ' 3 7 . 2 ' 8 .0 ' 8 .2 ' 7 . 6 ' 1 7 .9 ' 4 1 . 3 ' 8 .2 ' 1 6 . 3 ' 1 4 .3 ' 8 . 0 ' 1 8 .1 ' 2 . 0 ' 6 . 0 ' 8 .3 ' 2 . 0 ' TH R E S H O L D 78 8 7 . 3 4 TH R E S H O L D 78 8 7 . 5 5 2 . 5 ' 1 . 7 ' 2 . 0 ' 2 . 5 ' RI D G E 79 1 0 . 3 RI D G E 79 0 7 . 8 P A T I O 7 8 8 2 . 8 C H I M N E Y (B A SI S O F B E A R I N G S ) S 7 5 °0 8 '1 1 "E 9 0 .0 0 ' S 1 4 ° 5 0 ' 4 9 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' N 7 5 °0 8 '11 "W 9 0 .0 0 ' N 1 4 ° 5 0 ' 4 9 " E 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' SM U G G L E R S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T A L L E Y - B L O C K 4 8 2 0 .6 '(T I E ) 6 . 4 ' ( T I E ) 1 5 . 1 ' ( T I E ) G G I R R 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " PL A N O F E X I S T I N G CO N D I T I O N 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A0.1 0' 16 ' 32 ' 8' 0'16'32'8' P52 III.A. 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " PH O T O G R A P H S O F EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A0.2 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 SO U T H E A S T P E R S P E C T I V E 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 NO R T H W E S T P E R S P E C T I V E 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 NO R T H P E R S P E C T I V E 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 NO R T H E A S T P E R S P E C T I V E P53 III.A. L O T A L O T B L O T C L O T D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 25 24 26 TO T A L AR E A 9, 0 0 0 ± S. F . 7 8 8 3 7 8 8 3 7 8 8 3 7883 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 5 78 8 5 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 5 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 3 78 84 3 7 . 2 ' 8 .0 ' 8 .2 ' 7 . 6 ' 1 7 .9 ' 2 . 0 ' 2 . 0 ' P A T I O 7 8 8 2 . 8 C H IM N E Y (B A SI S O F B E A R I N G S ) S 7 5 °0 8 '1 1 "E 9 0 .0 0 ' S 1 4 ° 5 0 ' 4 9 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' N 7 5 °0 8 '11 "W 9 0 .0 0 ' N 1 4 ° 5 0 ' 4 9 " E 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' SM U G G L E R S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T A L L E Y - B L O C K 4 8 2 0 .6 '(T I E ) 6 . 4 ' ( T I E ) 1 5 . 1 ' ( T I E ) EX I S T I N G H O U S E UN I T ' B ' NE W U N I T ' B ' ON E S T O R Y AD D I T I O N NE W U N I T ' B ' ON E C A R GA R A G E NE W UN I T ' A ' NE W S H E D D O R M E R NE W S T A I R 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " F R O N T S E T B A C K R E A R S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K R E A R G A R A G E S E T B A C K 5 ' - 0 " NE W A R E A WE L L NE W A R E A WE L L NE W S T A I R 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " SI T E P L A N 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A0.30'16'32'8' P54 III.A. 90 ' - 0 " 1 1 ' - 9 " BE D R O O M # 1 10 0 BA T H R O O M # 1 10 1 W.I . C . # 1 10 2 ST A I R H A L L 10 3 BE D R O O M # 2 10 4 BA T H R O O M # 2 10 5 ME D I A R O O M 10 6 LA U N D R Y R O O M 10 7 ME C H A N I C A L RO O M 10 9 6 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 1 9 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 14 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 9 " 6' - 9 " 12 ' - 5 " 3 ' - 0 " 4' - 9 " PROPERTY LINE 3 ' - 6 1 / 2 " HA L L 5' - 8 " 4 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 8 1 / 2 " 5' - 4 " ST O R A G E CL O S E T 4' - 6 " 5' - 7 " 11 ' - 3 " 3 ' - 0 " 3' - 6 1 / 2 " ST A I R A B O V E 5' - 0"24' - 1 1/2"11' - 0"3' - 8"14' - 0 1/2"9' - 7 1/2"9' - 0 1/2"8' - 2 1/2" 21 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 5' - 8 " 10 ' - 1 1 " 38 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 5 " 4 0 ' - 9 1 / 2 " AR E A W E L L AR E A W E L L 8' - 4 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " SI T T I N G R O O M RE A R S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K RE A R G A R A G E S E T B A C K WI N D O W WE L L BE D R O O M # 2 BE D R O O M # 1 BA T H R O O M BA T H R O O M 1 ' - 1 " 3 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 3' - 6 1 / 2 " 3' - 2 1 / 2 " 5' - 0" 10 ' - 0 " ST A I R A B O V E 34 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 22 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 17 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 5' - 0" 7 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 2 6 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 1 " LO W E R L E V E L GA R A G E 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L P L A N 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A1.00'8'16'4' P55 III.A. 1 3 ' - 1 1 / 2 " ST U D Y 20 0 EN T R Y 20 1 CL O S E T 20 2 LI V I N G R O O M 20 3 PO W D E R R O O M 20 4 ST A I R 20 5 DIN I N G R O O M 20 6 KI T C H E N 20 7 13 ' - 7 " 12 ' - 1 1 " 1 6 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 9 ' - 1 1 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 3 " 7' - 3 " 19' - 10"7' - 1 1/2"14' - 2 1/2"3' - 6 1/2"11' - 0"24' - 1 1/2"5' - 0" BR E A K F A S T RO O M NE W G R A Y GR A N I T E S T E P S NO N - H I S T O R I C G U A R D R A I L T O B E RE P L A C E D W I T H P E R I O D C O R R E C T TU R N E D S P I N D L E S , N E W E L L S A N D R A I L S UN I T ' B ' GA R A G E 10 ' - 9 " 8' - 4 " 20 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 2' - 8 1 / 2 " 25 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 0 " NE W W I N D O W W E L L W/ M E T A L G R A T E C O V E R NE W W I N D O W W E L L W/ M E T A L G R A T E C O V E R GR A Y G R A N I T E ST E P S ME T A L R A I L PROPERTY LINE RE A R S E T B A C K RE A R G A R A G E S E T B A C K 28 ' - 8 " 28 ' - 5 " 17 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 5' - 0" CO U R T Y A R D KI T C H E N DI N I N G A R E A LI V I N G R O O M S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K LI N E O F W A L L BE L O W , T Y P . EN T R Y PO W D E R 1 0 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 2 0 ' - 1 1 " 6 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 0 " 1 3 ' - 0 " ME T A L R A I L OF F I C E MU D R M . 2' - 8 " 5' - 7 " 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " FI R S T F L O O R P L A N 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A1.10'8'16'4' P56 III.A. 5' - 0 " P L . H T . 5'- 0 " P L . H T . 6'- 7 " P L . H T . 7'- 0 " P L . H T . 5'- 8 " P L . H T . 12 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 5'- 0 " P L . H T . BE N C H MA S T E R BE D R O O M 30 0 ST A I R H A L L 30 1 MA S T E R BA T H R O O M 30 2 MA S T E R W . I . C . 30 3 SH O W E R H A L L 30 4 W/C 30 6 MA S T E R SH O W E R 30 5 4' - 1 1 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 1 " 3' - 6 " 3' - 1 " 4' - 8 1 / 2 " 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 2 " 1 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 3 ' - 1 1 " 6 ' - 0 " ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F , TY P I C A L O N A L L N E W ST R U C T U R E S U . N . O . 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 MA S T E R BE D R O O M MA S T E R CL O S E T LO W S L O P E RO O F RE A R S E T B A C K RE A R G A R A G E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K MA S T E R BA T H R O O M 11 : 1 2 11 : 1 2 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A1.20'8'16'4' P57 III.A. RO O F T O B E R E M O V E D A N D R E B U I L T W I T H EX I S T I N G D E P T H , O V E R H A N G S , E A V E DE T A I L S B U T W I T H M O D E R N F R A M I N G MA T E R I A L S A N D I N S U L A T I O N RE S T O R E E X I S T I N G BR I C K C H I M N E Y NE W S H E D D O R M E R RE M O V E E X I S T I N G SK Y L I G H T ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F , TY P I C A L O N A L L N E W ST R U C T U R E S U . N . O . 1 1 : 1 2 RE A R S E T B A C K RE A R G A R A G E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K S I D E S E T B A C K 4 : 1 2 1 1 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 11 : 1 2 11 : 1 2 LO W S L O P E RO O F 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " RO O F P L A N 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A1.30'8'16'4' P58 III.A. FI R S T F L O O R 10 0 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L 90 ' - 0 " EX I S T I N G W I N D O W S T O B E RE P L A C E D W / N E W W O O D W I N D O W TO M A T C H E X I S T I N G ( T Y P . ) RE S T O R E E X I S T I N G BR I C K C H I M N E Y RO O F T O B E R E M O V E D A N D R E B U I L T W I T H E X I S T I N G DE P T H , O V E R H A N G S & E A V E D E T A I L S B U T W I T H MO D E R N F R A M I N G M A T E R I A L S A N D I N S U L A T I O N EX I S T I N G 4 . 5 " E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S A N D B A S E TR I M T O R E M A I N A N D B E R E S T O R E D NE W C O N C R E T E F O U N D A T I O N T O M A T C H E X I S T I N G AP P E A R A N C E : E X I S T I N G F O U N D A T I O N S T O N E S T O B E CU T D O W N T O V E N E E R T H I C K N E S S A N D A P P L I E D T O NE W C O N C R E T E F O U N D A T I O N W A L L S NO N - H I S T O R I C G U A R D R A I L T O B E RE P L A C E D W I T H P E R I O D C O R R E C T TU R N E D S P I N D L E S , N E W E L L S A N D R A I L S . OT H E R V I C T O R I A N D E T A I L S T O R E M A I N NE W S E C O N D FL O O R 11 0 ' - 2 " RE M O V E S H A K E S H I N G L E S I D I N G A T GA B L E - E N D S A N D R E P L A C E W I T H HO R I Z O N T A L C L A P B O A R D S I D I N G T O MA T C H ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F CO U R S E D A S H L A R G R A Y GR A N I T E B A S E & S T E P S WO O D D O O R A N D SI D E L I G H T S 3" E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S , FA S C I A , & S K I R T B O A R D D E T A I L TO C O M P L E M E N T H I S T O R I C HO U S E A N D T O B E P A I N T E D A SH A D E D A R K E R T H A N T H E HI S T O R I C H O U S E C O L O R ME T A L R A I L 12 12 1 4 ' - 7 1 / 2 " GA R A G E B E Y O N D FIRST FLOOR 100'-0"LOWER LEVEL 90'-0" NE W S H E D D O R M E R RE S T O R E E X I S T I N G BR I C K C H I M N E Y NEW SECOND FLOOR 110'-2"NEW WINDOW WELL AND WINDOWS RE M O V E S H A K E S H I N G L E S I D I N G AT G A B L E - E N D S A N D R E P L A C E WI T H H O R I Z O N T A L C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G T O M A T C H WO O D A W N I N G WI N D O W , T Y P . CO U R S E D A S H L A R GR A Y G R A N I T E B A S E & S T E P S ME T A L R A I L 3" E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S , FA S C I A , & S K I R T B O A R D D E T A I L TO C O M P L E M E N T H I S T O R I C HO U S E A N D T O B E P A I N T E D A SH A D E D A R K E R T H A N T H E HI S T O R I C H O U S E C O L O R EXISTING 4.5" EXPOSURE CLAPBOARD SIDING, CORNER BOARDS AND BASE TRIM TO REMAIN AND BE RESTOREDNON-HISTORIC GUARDRAIL TO BE REPLACED WITH PERIOD CORRECT TURNED SPINDLES, NEWELLS AND RAILS.OTHER VICTORIAN DETAILS TO REMAIN ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F ROOF TO BE REMOVED AND REBUILT WITH EXISTING DEPTH, OVERHANGS &EAVE DETAILS BUT WITH MODERN FRAMING MATERIALS AND INSULATION EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REPLACED W/ NEW WOOD WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING (TYP.) 12 4 12 12 PA N E L I Z E D S H E E T ME T A L C L A D D I N G ME T A L W I N D O W A N D DO O R S Y S T E M RH E I N Z I N K S T A N D I N G S E A M RO O F A N D W A L L C L A D D I N G 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " UN I T ' B ' E L E V A T I O N S 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A3.0 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 UN I T ' B ' - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 UN I T ' B ' - E A S T E L E V A T I O N 0'8'16'4' P59 III.A. FI R S T F L O O R 10 0 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L 90 ' - 0 " RE S T O R E E X I S T I N G BR I C K C H I M N E Y NE W S H E D D O R M E R FA S C I A , S I D I N G A N D T R I M T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G NE W W O O D W I N D O W & TR I M T O M A T C H EX I S T I N G NE W S E C O N D FL O O R 11 0 ' - 2 " NE W W I N D O W W E L L AN D W I N D O W S NE W W O O D FR E N C H D O O R S RE M O V E M O D I F I E D H I S T O R I C WIN D O W & D O O R RE L O C A T E E X I S T I N G W I N D O W A N D RE P L A C E W / N E W W O O D W I N D O W EX I S T I N G 4 . 5 " E X P O S U R E C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G , C O R N E R B O A R D S A N D B A S E TR I M T O R E M A I N A N D B E R E S T O R E D RE M O V E S K Y L I G H T RH E I N Z I N K S T A N D I N G S E A M RO O F A N D W A L L C L A D D I N G GL A S S A N D A L U M I N U M GA R A G E D O O R ME T A L D O O R S Y S T E M TO M A T C H W I N D O W S 12 11 FI R S T F L O O R 10 0 ' - 0 " LO W E R L E V E L 90 ' - 0 " RE S T O R E E X I S T I N G BR I C K C H I M N E Y NO N - H I S T O R I C D O R M E R TO B E R E M O V E D NE W S E C O N D FL O O R 11 0 ' - 2 " RE M O V E S H A K E S H I N G L E S I D I N G AT G A B L E - E N D S A N D R E P L A C E WI T H H O R I Z O N T A L C L A P B O A R D SI D I N G T O M A T C H NE W S H E D D O R M E R NE W C O N C R E T E F O U N D A T I O N T O MA T C H E X I S T I N G A P P E A R A N C E : EX I S T I N G F O U N D A T I O N S T O N E S T O B E CU T D O W N T O V E N E E R T H I C K N E S S AN D A P P L I E D T O N E W C O N C R E T E FO U N D A T I O N W A L L S ME T A L R A I L EX I S T I N G W I N D O W S T O B E RE P L A C E D W / N E W W O O D WIN D O W S T O M A T C H E X I S T I N G ( T Y P . ) CO U R S E D A S H L A R G R A Y GR A N I T E B A S E & S T E P S EX I S T I N G 4 . 5 " E X P O S U R E CL A P B O A R D S I D I N G , C O R N E R BO A R D S A N D B A S E T R I M T O RE M A I N A N D B E R E S T O R E D 12 4 RH E I N Z I N K S T A N D I N G S E A M RO O F A N D W A L L C L A D D I N G ME T A L W I N D O W A N D DO O R S Y S T E M 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " UN I T ' B ' E L E V A T I O N S 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A3.1 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 UN I T ' B ' - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 UN I T ' B ' - W E S T E L E V A T I O N 0'8'16'4' P60 III.A. UNIT 'A' FIRST FLOOR 98'-0"UNIT 'A' SECOND FLOOR 108'-0" 12 11 STANDING SEAM RHEINZINK ROOF AND WALL CLADDINGMETAL SKY LIGHT--TO MATCH WINDOW SYSTEM METAL DOOR SYSTEM MATCH WINDOWSUNIT 'A' FIRST FLOOR 98'-0"UNIT 'A' SECOND FLOOR 108'-0"STANDING SEAM RHEINZINK ROOF AND WALL CLADDINGMETAL SKY LIGHT--TO MATCH WINDOW SYSTEM METAL DOOR SYSTEM MATCH WINDOWS UN I T ' A ' F I R S T FL O O R 98 ' - 0 " UN I T ' A ' S E C O N D FL O O R 10 8 ' - 0 " 12 11 ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F A N D WA L L C L A D D I N G ME T A L S K Y L I G H T - - T O MA T C H W I N D O W S Y S T E M ME T A L C L A D C O L U M N UN I T ' A ' F I R S T FL O O R 98 ' - 0 " UN I T ' A ' S E C O N D FL O O R 10 8 ' - 0 " ST A N D I N G S E A M RH E I N Z I N K R O O F A N D WA L L C L A D D I N G ME T A L S K Y L I G H T - - T O MA T C H W I N D O W SY S T E M ME T A L W I N D O W SY S T E M 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " UN I T ' A ' E L E V A T I O N S 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 42 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A3.2 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 UN I T ' A ' - E A S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 UN I T ' A ' - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 UN I T ' A ' - W E S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 UN I T ' A ' - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N P61 III.A. 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST R E E T E L E V A T I O N S 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A3.3 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 NO R T H E L E V A T I O N - SM U G G L E R S T R E E T 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 WE S T E L E V A T I O N - S E C O N D S T R E E T 0'8'16'4' P62 III.A. PE R S P E C T I V E S 22 9 W E S T S M U G G L E R S T R E E T & 4 2 6 N O R T H S E C O N D S T R E E T 12 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 4 A3.4 2 PE R S P E C T I V E - N O R T H W E S T C O R N E R 4 PE R S P E C T I V E - N O R T H E A S T C O R N E R 3 PE R S P E C T I V E - S O U T H E A S T C O R N E R 1 PE R S P E C T I V E - S O U T H W E S T C O R N E R P63 III.A. 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, Lot 2 Page 1 of 5 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT /R ESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 202 N. Monarch Subdivision, Lot 2–Conceptual Major Development and Variances, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 7, 2014 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The subject property is a vacant parcel directly behind (east) of the “Blue Vic,” the large Victorian at the corner of Bleeker and Monarch Streets. The parcel was created through a Subdivision approved in 2006, and remained a designated landmark, like the adjacent historic home. A duplex is proposed. HPC will conduct Conceptual and Final design review. APPLICANT: Garrett Gulch Equity Venture, LLC, represented by S2 Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-17-031. ADDRESS: 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, Lot 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: Mixed-Use. (Please note that this parcel is zoned Mixed Use due to its proximity to the commercial development along Mill Street, rather than R-6, like most of the West End. Residential development is permitted in the zone district, but incurs a 20% floor area penalty, which has been included in this proposal. Allowed floor area is also reduced due to steep slopes at the rear of the site.) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve P64 IV.A. 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, Lot 2 Page 2 of 5 withconditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” The proposed new duplex is the center structure shown in this Bleeker streetscape drawing. Staff finds that the proportions and height of the new building relate well to the adjacent properties and provide a sensitively designed project at this transition point between residential and commercial development. This is an instance where a flat roof is particularly supported by the design guidelines, which indicate that flat roofs can be used where it is appropriate to the context. The duplex is pushed to the east side of the lot, providing some breathing room for the historic structure and addition. Staff recommends Conceptual HPC design guideline approval as designed. The project does not meet the Residential Design Standard related to Secondary Mass. Secondary mass. All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. P65 IV.A. 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, Lot 2 Page 3 of 5 A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10) feet in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. In order to grant variances, HPC must find that the proposal will: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. A modification to the dimensions of the one story linking element (see arrow above) could eliminate the need for a variance, or HPC could grant the variance as requested. The link is approximately 20 feet wide. The maximum is 10 feet. The length of the connector is to be no more than 10 feet. The proposal is inches over this limit. Staff finds that the intent of the standard, to break down the scale of the home, is met. Often, garages serve as the Secondary Mass for a home, but in this case, garage access is at a lower elevation, at the rear of the site. The proposed linking element does not have a deck on it and truly provides a noticeable gap between the two story elements of Units A and B. Staff recommends a variance is appropriate for this project. =============================================================== P66 IV.A. 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, Lot 2 Page 4 of 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual approval and a Variance from “Secondary Mass” with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby grants a waiver from the Residential Design Standard related to Secondary Mass. 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of January 7, 2015, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. EXHIBITS : Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Exhibit A: HPC Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines, Conceptual review 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. Mass and Scale 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. P67 IV.A. 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, Lot 2 Page 5 of 5 Building & Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. P68 IV.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 202 N. MONARCH SUBDIVISION, LOT 2, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2015 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-17-031 WHEREAS, the applicant, Garrett Gulch Equity Venture, LLC, represented by S2 Architects, has requested HPC Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design Standard Variance approval for construction of a new duplex on the vacant property located at 202 N. Monarch Subdivision, Lot 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standards according to Section 26.410.020.D; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on January 7, 2015. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design Standard Variance approval for 202 N. Monarch Subdivision, Lot 2, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby grants a waiver from the Residential Design Standard related to Secondary Mass. 2. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of January 7, 2015, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months P69 IV.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2015 Page 2 of 2 provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 7th day of January, 2015. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ___________________________________ _____________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P70 IV.A. P71 IV.A. P72 IV.A. P73 IV.A. P74 IV.A. P 7 5 I V . A . P76 I V . A . P77 I V . A . P78 I V . A . P79 I V . A . P80 I V . A . P81 I V . A . P82 I V . A . P 8 3 I V . A . P 8 4 I V . A . P 8 5 I V . A . P 8 6 I V . A . P 8 7 I V . A . P 8 8 I V . A . P89 I V . A . P90 I V . A . P91 I V . A . P92 I V . A . P93 I V . A . P94 I V . A . P 9 5 I V . A . P96 I V . A . EXHI8IT- - -]-i q AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE COD ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2•CU 2 N • MZr1wx.Qn Sk , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Jaun 7 5:06 RrK) , 20 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the _ day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing'of.notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section •26.304.060(E),(2) of the'Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to :..the.public__hearing, notice was hand `delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaidiU.S mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of ,, :; property�,owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they � tf»'y� jzappeared nojmore than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A �~ copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach su77777za7y, including the method of public notification and a copy of any docu»ientation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be aimended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this %S' day of �_ ,.20L ,by res ego. �Ltrf�,� PUBLIC NOTICE I . RE:LOT 2,202 N.MONARCH STREET SUBDIVISION-CONCEPTUALMAJORWITNESS W HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL.DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCES --- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,January 7,2015,at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen My commission expires: Historic Preservation Commission,in Council Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen to consider an application submitted by Garrett Gulch Equity Venture,LLC,2950 E.Broad Street,Co- lumbus,OH,43209,affecting their vacant lot,de- scribed as Lot 2,202 N.Monarch Street Subdivi- sion,City and Townsite of Aspen,Colorado,Parcel Notary Public IDN2737-073-17-031. The applicant is requesting variances es from for a new duplex and approval for KAREN REED PATTERSON variances from the Residential Design Standards. For further information,contact Amy Simon at the NOTARY PUBLIC City of Aspen Community Development Depart- ment, 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970) STATE OF COLORADO 429-2753,amy.simonOcityotaspen.com. NOTARY(D#19964002767 ffirIs Pember .TTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: M Commission ire.FebrU: t5 Chair,Aspen Historic Preservation Commission y r 2016 Published in the Aspen Times on December 18, 2014 c1o7s8995i ?IBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 0 8 N . Akolafty %. Loll a , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 20 I S DEC.2 3 2014 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. CITY OF ASPEN County of Pitkin ) MU�11TY pVVEIOPME�� I, W ,1\; a_d`n (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in . height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the 1-� day of 'De-cion V,�Qf , 20 1�, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or.mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) _R�L Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. n a Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The Koregoing "Affidavit of Notic "was acknowledged before me this/-3 day of ems- , 20H, by L U'((twn-- i, — LESLIE HINELINE BOYER WITNESS MY HAND AND O FICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My commissio x ' .es: NOTARY ID 19964006063 My Commission Expires April 5,2016 Notary bli ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYIVIAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 a f I 225 NORTH MILL ST LLC 232 BLEEKER LLC 232 EAST MAIN STREET LLC 1530 BROADWAY 4TH FL 2385 NW EXECUTIVE CENTER DR#370 2001 N HALSTED#304 j NEW YORK, NY 10036 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 CHICAGO, IL 60614 I 310 EAST MAIN STREET VENTURES LLC AMATO JOSEPH A ASPEN COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST 540 W MADISON ST#2500 PO BOX 503 CHURCH CHICAGO, IL 60661 HIGHLAND MILLS, NY 10930 200 E BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 jBANK MIDWEST N A BERKO GINA BLEEKER MILL DEVELOPMENT LLC 1111 MAIN ST#2800 292 GLEN EAGLES DR 345 PARK AVE 33RD FL KANSAS CITY, MO 64105 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10154 CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC CHALAL JOSEPH B CITY OF ASPEN PO BOX 1365 1005 BROOKS LN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81612 DELRAY BEACH, FL 334836507 ASPEN, CO 81611 CJB REALTY INVESTORS LLC COMMUNITY BANKS OF COLORADO ELM 223 LLC 6544 WENONGA CIR 1111 MAIN ST#2800 PO BOX 360 MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 KANSAS CITY, MO 641052154 ASPEN, CO 81612 FIRST 415 RIO GRANDE PLACE TRST FLEISHER DAVID M GARRETT GULCH EQUITY VENTURE LLC SECOND 415 RIO GRANDE PLACE TRST 292 GLEN EAGLES DR 2950 E BROAD ST PO BOX 8982 ASPEN, CO 81611 COLUMBUS, OH 43209 ASPEN, CO 81612 GETTMAN ROSA H TRUST HAYES MARY E &JAMES L FAM LP LLLP HODES ALAN & DEBORAH 325 S FOREST 209 E BLEEKER ST 114 N ASPEN ST. DENVER, CO 80246 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 i HODGSON PHILIP R 50% JEROME PROPERTY LLC KRIBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST 212 N MONARCH ST 540 W MADISON ST PO BOX 9994 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60661 ASPEN, CO 81612 LIGHT HOLDINGS LLLP MADDEN WALTER ROSS 42.5% MONARCH HOLDINGS LLC 801 BASELINE RD 218 N MONARCH ST 458 WALLS WY BOULDER, CO 80302 ASPEN, CO 81611 OSPREY, FL 34229 MYRIN CUTHBERT L JR 57.5% NEWLON LLC PEARCE FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 12365 C/O DANFORTH 216 E MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81612 PO BOX 1863 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY PUPPY SMITH LLC RANDALL MIDDLETON/HALLAM LP 530 E MAIN ST#302 602 E COOPER#202 FIVE POST OAK PARK#2580 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 4400 POST OAK PKWY HOUSTON,TX 77027 RAYTON RENEE ROCKHILL BRITTANIE SEGUIN WILLIAM L&MARILYN A PO BOX 12104 PO BOX 10261 PO BOX 4274 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 816124274 SEMRAU FAMILY LLC WELLS FARGO BANK WHITMAN RANDALL A 300 S SPRING ST#203 C/O THOMSON PROPERTY TAX 4845 HAMMOCK LAKE DR ASPEN, CO 816112806 SERVICES CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 I �I I r w .;-paw'• �� �v '>i a� .i �. Zt NO I•s- rs ���rA , � �� �.`��S�� .St1C t e, � ,•_ 1 � h � � y,�d,�fr -. _ ♦ h a `� o-au. ', ��t �F7i1�e�,t �, `� _-.�Hti����l .� a". �p+�, 'ifr�` ey,,,�s� � •� - r -wz rpttA gt�1 +Ci` µv` •T F Y �' - 41.� FU - +�'i im " 52..5 .. _�.�` � � sl � ;• ,.,�"_ a� �1''�"'��� g `.,:c�3 f. �: � �� T• S Y�k� � ,,gyp 1�..:. e , .'R` y T• q�� S2 � J.t pY� :a•-A U'' A: {ery Al' r 3 lir Vrj '�'" ..� .,� "° '�►-�, : SQA Monday,December 8,2014 at 6:39:32 PM Mountain Standard Time Subject: Fwd: Lot 2 public notice Date: Saturday, December 6, 2014 at 7:04:26 PM Mountain Standard Time From: Bill Guth To: Bill Guth Bill Guth bill@hopsculture.com 970-300-2120 ----------Forwarded message---------- From:Amy Simon<amy.simon cityofaspen.com> Date: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:57 PM Subject: Lot 2 public notice To: "Joseph Spears(josep Ps2architects.com)"<joseph@s2architects.com>, "Bill Guth (bi�hopsculture.com)" <bilI@ hopscu ltu re.com> Hi-a little early, here are the mailer and poster for Lot 2 public notice of HPC review. Please mail the letter out to everyone on your 300' public notice list. Please print the poster at 24 x 36 and hang on the site, laminated or otherwise protected,close enough to the street to be easily readable. This all as to happen by 5 p.m. on Dec. 23rd. Once you've done the noticing, please complete the attached affidavit, have it notarized and return it to me. (Put n/a next to everything except posting and mailing on the affidavit.) Thanks! Amy Simon City of Aspen Historic Preservation 130 S.Galena Street Aspen,CO 81611 (970)429-2758 www.asp.tnpitk*in.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further,the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning,which is subject to change in the future,and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. Page 1 of 2